Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE
Permit Number - T04CM02462
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/20/2004 | Joseph Linville | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | No landscape plans have been received with the resubmittal, Additional comments may apply. 1. Submit landscape plan per DS 2-07.0 2. Indicate square footage of all landscaped areas and calculation of the percentage of vegetative coverage per DS 2-07.2.2.2.g 3. Fifty (50) percent or more of the street landscape border area must have shrubs and vegetative ground cover. One canopy tree must be provided for every thirty-three (33) linear feet of street landscape border per LUC 3.7.2.4 4. 20% of shrubs in landscape border are required to be 5 gallon size DS 2-06.3.5.F 5. Indicate both the proper and common name of each type of plant material DS 2-07.2.2.A.d 6. Provide a 5' continuous screen along Delano St. per LUC Table 3.7.2-1 7. Screens may be located in the landscape border if the criteria indicated in LUC 3.7.3.2 are met. Vegetative screens shall not extend more than three (3) feet into the street landscape border. 8. Show on landscape plan existing and future sight visibility triangles DS 2-02.2.2.1.A.10 9. Any screen higher than thirty (30) inches must be located outside of the sight visibility triangle per LUC 3.7.3.4 10. Within a vehicular use area, one (1) canopy tree is required for each (15) motor vehicle, A minimum of one (1) canopy tree is provided within a vehicular use area per LUC 3.7.2.3 11. Trees that are located in areas of required landscaping will be a minimum fifteen (15) gallon container size per DS 2-06.3.5.C 12. Landscape plan shall include irrigation specification design and layout per DS 2-07.5.4.A & DS 2-07.5.4.B including source of irrigation, sleeves for driveways and sidewalks, locations of valves, low-flow bubblers or drip irrigation. 13. A 5' wall is required to screen the parking lot from adjacent property to the east per LUC Table 3.7.2-I 14. All walls are required to be of masonry material or masonry with stucco or textured finish. LUC 3.7.3.7.A.1 15. Show on the landscape plan location of the refuse storage per LUC Table 3.7.2-I 16. A 6' screen for refuse storage is required for adjacent properties LUC Table 3.7.2-I 17. All disturbed areas including adjacent right of ways shall be treated with ground cover such as decomposed granite to help reduce dust pollution per LUC 3.7.2.7 18. Submit NPPO plan or Application for Exception per DS 2-15.0 |
| 08/20/2004 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit NPPO plan or Application for Exception per DS 2-15.0 |
| 09/03/2004 | JIM TATE | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: September 3, 2004 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T04CM02462 PROJECT NAME: Delano Duplex PROJECT ADDRESS: 350 W. Delano PROJECT REVIEWER: James C. Tate, P.E., CFM The following items must be revised or added to the Site Plan. Please include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. Resubmittal Required: Site Plan, Hydrology Report GENERAL COMMENTS: 1. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Site Plan purposes only. 2. A Grading Permit is required. The Grading Plan included in the Site submittal was not reviewed. A Grading Plan application and payment of appropriate fees is required prior to Grading Plan review. Submit the Grading Plan for review. PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENT 3. A Flood Use Permit is required prior to Grading Plan approval. 4. In floodplain areas where fill is to be used to raise the elevation of a building site, the building line must be located not less than twenty-five feet land ward from any edge of the fill, unless a study prepared by a registered professional civil engineer shows a lesser distance is acceptable. Tucson Code Chapter 26, Sec 8(d) This must be provided with the grading plan submittal. PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENT 5. In floodplain areas where fill is to be used to raise the elevation of a building site, the fill shall be protected from erosion which could be accomplished by placing rip rap or other city engineer approved method. This must be shown on the grading plan. PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENT SITE PLAN COMMENTS 1. The solid waste location must be relocated. The truck can not be allowed to back up into the street. Also, the enclosure can not be located in the required landscape border. DS 6-01.4.1.I PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENT 2. All curb cuts (depressed curb) not used for ingress/egress must be closed and vertical curb installed. street. PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENT 3. Show 100-yr. water surface elevations on the Site Plan. The WSEL can be included on the Grading Plan if desired, but it must be shown on the Site Plan. DS 2-02.2.1.A.15 PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENT 4. The Site Plan sheet and Grading Plan sheet have the same drawing number (C-1) Because the plans are being submitted simultaneously, it is recommended that they be given different drawing numbers. 5. Keynote 21 specifies rip rap. The same location shows a scupper. It can't be both. Actually, the scupper is required to direct drainage under the sidewalk. All drainage structures on the plan (including scuppers, culverts, rip rap, catch basins, etc.) must be properly identified by type, dimensions, etc. PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENT 6. Sidewalks must be physically separated from any vehicular travel lane by means of curbing, barriers, or other means. The sidewalks adjacent to units 2,5, and 6 are not separated from the travel lane. DS 2-08.4.1 PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENT 7. Show the erosion hazard setback on the Site Plan (See drainage report comment 2). The erosion hazard setback for bank protected washes is 10 ft. See Tucson Code Chapter 26-7.2 PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENT 8. Keynotes 1 and 2 specify the correct stem side dimension for the sight visibility triangles (20 ft.) but the triangles shown on the plan scale 15 ft. Correct the plan. PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENT DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS 1. Backwater computations must show that the WSEL will not increase the base flood more than .1 ft. The HEC model indicates that the increase in WSEL exceeds .1 ft. for sections 14.7 and 14.8. Chapter 26 Tucson Code. 2. The Drainage Report must show where the sections used for the HEC model are located. Provide a drawing or map showing the section locations. 3. Page 4 Section II refers to a WSEL of 2328.26-2328.99 and specifies the datum as NAVD 88. This is incorrect. This should be NGVD-29. 4. It appears from the photos provided in the drainage report that erosion of the existing banks of the wash has not recently been a problem. The existing rock rip rap appears to be well seated and large trees and grass are growing on the bank. The slope of the bank appears to be about 3:1 which would indicate that hand placed rock rip rap protection would be sufficient. Perhaps the drainage report might address an alternative to concreting the bank (such as repair of the existing protection and providing appropriate toe down). The Drainage Report specifies shotcrete with a toe down. Perhaps what is meant is a concrete footer with shotcrete banks. Whatever is proposed, please show a section in the Drainage Report and on the site plan to illustrate the proposed bank protection. If elimination of the trees is proposed, written approval from DSD Landscape and also the City of Tucson Department of Transportation is required. |
| 09/07/2004 | EGRANT1 | HANDICAP-SITE | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 09/07/2004 | EGRANT1 | ZONING | REVIEW | Needs Review |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 09/07/2004 | BETH GRANT | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |